A LIVING CONSTITUTION WITHOUT JUDICIAL REVIEW: RETHINKING CONSTITUTIONAL INTERPRETATION IN VIETNAM

• 
  
  
  Nguyen Minh Tuan et al.
  University of Law, Vietnam National University Hanoi (VNU-UL)
  ORCID: https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0650-986X
• Veredas do Direito (Scopus/WoS/ESCI), Vol. 23 No. 2 (2026)

• DOI: 

  https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n2.4288
• Link to download: here
• Abstract: This article reinterprets constitutional development in Vietnam through the lens of the living constitution doctrine. While many constitutional systems recognize that constitutional meaning must evolve with social change, Vietnam’s interpretive practice remains largely formalistic and institutionally constrained. Drawing on comparative insights from the United States, Germany, and South Korea, the article shows how constitutional courts sustain the normative vitality of constitutional law by adapting constitutional principles to contemporary challenges. In contrast, the absence of constitutional adjudication in Vietnam has fostered a rigid legal culture that struggles to respond to emerging societal demands. The article advances three reform directions: establishing an independent mechanism for constitutional review, integrating dynamic interpretive approaches into legal education, and strengthening scholarly debate on constitutional meaning. It argues that constitutional effectiveness depends not on textual permanence alone, but on the capacity of constitutional interpretation to remain responsive to lived social realities. The article ultimately asks whether, and to what extent, the living constitution can serve as a viable interpretive framework for constitutional development in Vietnam in the absence of judicial review.Keywords: Living Constitution, Judicial Review, Constitutional Formalism, Constitutional Interpretation, Constitutional Adaptability

DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY AND PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONING: INSTITUTIONAL CONDITIONS FOR ACCOUNTABILITY IN COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE

 Ho Thi Huong

University of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU-UL), Hanoi, Vietnam 

(Main Author)

https://orcid.org/0009-0001-1872-3704

Nguyen Minh Tuan

University of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi (VNU-UL), Hanoi, Vietnam 

(Corresponding Author)

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0650-986X

Veredas do Direito (Scopus/WoS/ESCI)

Vol. 23 No. 1 (2026): Veredas do Direito, v. 23, n. 1 2026

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18623/rvd.v23.n1.4170

All authors contributed equally to the development of this article

Link to download here

Abstract

This paper examines how digital technologies are transforming parliamentary questioning processes in the United Kingdom, Singapore, and Vietnam. While technology has contributed to faster procedures, greater transparency, and enhanced accountability, thereby reshaping the exercise of political power, its effects vary significantly across national contexts. The study proposes a four-level framework for digital transformation in parliamentary questioning, ranging from basic procedural digitization to advanced models that enable citizen co-creation of the questioning agenda. Based on this framework, the paper offers policy implications for improving the effectiveness and accountability of parliamentary questioning in the digital age.

Keywords: Parliament; Parliamentary Questioning; Digital Technology; Accountability; Digital Governance.

REGULATING LEGAL ETHICS IN VIETNAM: INSTITUTIONAL CHALENGES, NORMATIVE FRAMEWORKS AND REFORM IMPERATIVES

Minh Tuan Nguyen

Associate Professor and Acting Dean of the Faculty of Theory, History of State and Law, University of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam

https://orcid.org/0009-0007-0650-986X

Thi My Hanh Dang

Master of law of the Faculty of Theory, History of State and Law, University of Law, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Vietnam

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-6755-4880

Jurnal Cita Hukum (WoS/ESCI)

Vol. 13 No. 3 (2025): Winter Edition (In Press)

DOI: https://doi.org/10.15408/jch.v13i3.46850

Abstract:

This article analyzes Vietnam’s regulatory mechanisms for legal ethics using institutional theory and comparative legal analysis. It explores how ethical standards can move beyond aspirational guidelines to become enforceable norms within a modern rule-of-law system. Applying a normative-analytical approach and case studies from Germany, the UK, the US, and Australia, the study identifies four core pillars of an effective mechanism: (i) ethical standards, (ii) independent supervisory institutions, (iii) transparent disciplinary procedures, and (iv) public accountability. Findings show Vietnam’s framework remains fragmented, administratively dependent, and lacks independent oversight and public participation. Ethical codes are non-binding, while enforcement is internalized, compromising transparency and trust. The article proposes five reforms: interdisciplinary ethical codes, partial legal codification, independent ethics committees, public feedback mechanisms, and situational ethics education. Together, these aim to build a dynamic governance system supporting integrity and accountability in legal practice. This research contributes to debates on regulatory governance in transitional legal systems and offers insights for designing context-sensitive, enforceable ethical frameworks.

Keywords: Legal ethics, regulatory governance, disciplinary systems, institutional accountability, comparative law

GIẢI MÃ CHỦ NGHĨA HIỆN THỰC PHÁP LÝ MỸ: AI THỰC SỰ LÀM LUẬT?

Nguyễn Minh Tuấn

Trường Đại học Luật, Đại học Quốc gia Hà nội

Tạp chí Luật sư Việt Nam, Số 7/2025, đăng ngày 8/7/2025, truy cập tại đây

(LSVN) - Chủ nghĩa hiện thực pháp lý Mỹ (American Legal Realism) ra đời vào đầu thế kỷ XX và thực tế đã vượt ra khỏi biên giới nước Mỹ, trở thành một lý thuyết pháp luật có sức ảnh hưởng đến nhiều nước trên thế giới. Cách tiếp cận pháp luật của trường phái này có gì đặc biệt? Tại sao cách tiếp cận hiện thực này lại có vai trò và sức ảnh hưởng lớn như vậy? Trong bài viết này, tác giả sẽ trình bày khái quát quá trình ra đời, những nội dung lý thuyết chủ yếu của chủ nghĩa hiện thực pháp lý Mỹ. Ngoài ra, tác giả cũng bình luận về những đóng góp cũng như những vấn đề còn bỏ ngỏ hoặc gây tranh cãi trong những nội dung lý thuyết này.